In the realm of literary nonfiction, this particular piece feels to me as though it falls under the category of column-writing, meaning it’s written by a writer who’s paid to divulge his opinion. I suppose The Atlantic lists Fallows as a correspondent not a columnist– but that still means that he’s paid for his analysis. I don’t especially think that this piece has a columny feel – like “hey Washington you’re dumb and you ought to do the things I’m about to write about for the next ten inches!”
If it weren’t published in a national magazine I’d call it an essay. I mean, I guess it is an essay. But the reason I’m calling it a column is because it’s proffering an opinion on public policy which is normally in the realm of columnists like Thomas Friedman or Paul Krugman or David Frum.
So in that sense, if it’s a column, it happens to be a very good, well written column. Being that it is a column (I think,) I had a tough time keeping the part of my brain that was saying, “Holy shit, man. America’s in a heap of it,” apart from the part of my brain that was saying, “Oh, boy, nice use of anonymous sources Mr. Fallows.” Now that I’ve clearly confused myself on whether this is an essay or a column or an article or a what-have-you, I’m going to henceforth refer to it as an essay/column or an essay or a column.
I’m also going to divide my response into two halves. One for the side of my brain that was coolly commenting on technique, and the other for the side of my brain that was reacting to America’s descent into hell.
Analysis of Technique:
The primary reason I’d say that this essay/column was well written is because, while ultimately offering an opinion, the essay has a conversational flow to it. It isn't until the conclusion that I felt like I was hearing Fallows' opinion. Throughout the piece I felt more like I was at roundtable, hearing many opinions.
This sense is also lent from the structure of the piece. It's a compelling form. It follows a query: Is America going to hell? Fallows delves in to a serious analysis of the question by interviewing a multitude of high profile sources. The ultimate answer is yes and/or no. But the way the column’s structured provides a very conversational tone because Fallows follows his query with a 'good news versus bad news' format.
After he presents the obvious general evidence that America is going to hell, he spends the bulk of the article analyzing the good news,( as in America’s going to hell but...) He begins by showing that America has a Jeremidian culture that promotes a pessimistic view, often with a beneficial outcome. He also discusses the relativity of America and China, discouraging the ‘us versus them’ dichotomy. The good news Fallows says is that America’s “feats of absorption (globally) and opportunity (domestically),” its university system and its openness to immigration are revered around the world.
After he presents the obvious general evidence that America is going to hell, he spends the bulk of the article analyzing the good news,( as in America’s going to hell but...) He begins by showing that America has a Jeremidian culture that promotes a pessimistic view, often with a beneficial outcome. He also discusses the relativity of America and China, discouraging the ‘us versus them’ dichotomy. The good news Fallows says is that America’s “feats of absorption (globally) and opportunity (domestically),” its university system and its openness to immigration are revered around the world.
The bad news is that America exhibits signs of decline in terms of jobs, debt, military strength, and overall independence. But the biggest problem, Fallows says, is that the political culture and its system of representation has paralyzed the government.
At this admission, Fallows changes his “going to hell” query and surmises that he doesn't mean that "America is going to hell," but that America has "failed to adapt" and it’s a governmental system is flawed. Then he briefly concludes, that America has two choices: a) work with our flawed governmental system or b) to work to contain the damage caused by our flawed system, or as Fallows bleakly calls it: "muddling through or starving the beast." His most salient recommendation is for the government to make decisions from a long-term-75-years-out standpoint as opposed to doing what's best to become reelected. He also mentions a coup, or for himself moving back to China as other possibilities. It's rather bleak.
The bleak tone is the finale, but for much of the column Fallows guides his roundtable toward evidence that America may not have gone to hell. He guided the converstation predominantly toward heartening evidence that societally America is as strong as it has always been. It wasn't until two-thirds of the way toward the end that Fallows juxtaposed the heartening evidence to the evidence of flawed polity, at which point it allowed for a type of problem/solution format. When Fallows finally reaches his dreary conclusion, the fact that he focused on the positives of America's position in comparison to China - that structure of good news - made his conclusion especially hard hitting.
The bleak tone is the finale, but for much of the column Fallows guides his roundtable toward evidence that America may not have gone to hell. He guided the converstation predominantly toward heartening evidence that societally America is as strong as it has always been. It wasn't until two-thirds of the way toward the end that Fallows juxtaposed the heartening evidence to the evidence of flawed polity, at which point it allowed for a type of problem/solution format. When Fallows finally reaches his dreary conclusion, the fact that he focused on the positives of America's position in comparison to China - that structure of good news - made his conclusion especially hard hitting.
Not only was the structure effective, but so was the viewpoint Fallows used. It allowed this essay to have an authority that’s rarely felt in a political column. Fallows, back home after a three-year stint in China, approaches the essay with a unique first-person view point. The deer in his front yard – a wildlife sighting unheard of in China – is a good example of how he draws upon personal experience. However, it’s just a dropping in point for Fallows. Other writers would perhaps rely primarily on their first-person experience. I mean, he could have gone on like ‘In China I saw this, in America I see that… and so on.’ Instead the strength of this piece is Fallows', collection of others' opinions.
His seemingly endless list of sources is the primary way that Fallows maintained his unique authority, even more so than his first person experience. He interviewed historians, politicians, soldiers, ministers, civil engineers, broadcast executives and high-tech researchers from America and from abroad. He also referenced influential economy and history texts. That he collects so many viewpoints on this conversation of whether America is going to hell or not, and that he lets the conversation remain positive for the majority of essay, allows Fallows to enter in the end with his final "muddled or starving the beast" analysis.
I think that there's a patience to this technique and it has a hard-hitting pay off.
His seemingly endless list of sources is the primary way that Fallows maintained his unique authority, even more so than his first person experience. He interviewed historians, politicians, soldiers, ministers, civil engineers, broadcast executives and high-tech researchers from America and from abroad. He also referenced influential economy and history texts. That he collects so many viewpoints on this conversation of whether America is going to hell or not, and that he lets the conversation remain positive for the majority of essay, allows Fallows to enter in the end with his final "muddled or starving the beast" analysis.
I think that there's a patience to this technique and it has a hard-hitting pay off.
My Opinion:
(Cliché alert) This column was like a roller coaster ride. (End cliché alert)
In chronological order here are my thoughts as I read this column/essay:
[ Good questions. Is America ahead of or behind China? And is America going to hell? Good question.
They get cell phone service on subways in China? Goddamn, I barely get any at my house. Oh yes, yes our infrastructure is ancient. Oh man. We’re living in ruins. Oh and, indeed, all of our smart Nobel Prize winners were born in other countries. Of course we’re going to hell.
Oh but not to worry, we’re no Rome. We have too many cities, to be toppled. And after all, even the pre-Colonial Puritans thought America had gone to hell and they didn’t even know what America was yet. Heck, Jimmy Carter was all doom-and-gloom in the eighties, when our excess was never greater! See, everything’s fine. Even Chinese diplomats speak in awe of our ability to avoid catastrophe. Anyway, this whole global idea of being ahead or behind other people is like brand new – only since Sputnik, ya know? And geez of course China’s going to have a larger economy than ours, there’s like a gazillion people in their country.
Plus, everybody in the world is coming to our Universities. We’re, like, by far the smartest people on earth. (Yeah, Americans rock!) And we’re the only ones who really understand a “global network” and we’re not really that racist anymore. I mean, we may gripe about it but we still let immigrants in our country. I mean, shit, we have “immigrant billionaires.” America’s awesome and we don’t enforce the “one baby rule.” We’ll rebuild our greatness. Everybody will see!
What’s that? Oh wait, Fallows is talking about our political system. Decades worth of special interest groups, tax breaks, and earmarks have created a “favor-ridden state.” Oh man. Systemic plaque and an enfeebling pattern of demosclereosis. Come On! Disproportionate representation in the House and Senate, but, but… Now Fallows is talking about rewriting the constitution. I mean, nobody will allow that. Ever. Oh man now he’s listing all the public services America’s been shortchanging for last thirty years, Jesus. Only 26% of American bridges are safe! What! Is it even safe to drive across the bridge on my way to school? I better stay home tomorrow.
Oh finally here’s the conclusion: a coup? Communism? No, that’s not it. Oh, “muddle through or starve the beast.” I see… Stay the course.. Okay. Alright. Okay.
I’m glad this article is over; I’m super depressed.]
The fact that I had such a manicdepressive response to this piece by Fallows, may be the primary reason, I feel compelled to describe it as a column. I think, the other reason is that a lot of the evidence that Fallows uses to support his argument or to guide the conversational flow is opinions. His sources, while all in high-ranking, impressively important roles, tended to state their opinions and not so much facts. The effect, I think, resulted in my feeling like I was being jerked around.
As for my actual opinion on whether America is going to hell? ... Well, I'm not qualified to say because I don't hold some sort of high level executive role in government or at university, so I'll just stay mum.
The fact that I had such a manicdepressive response to this piece by Fallows, may be the primary reason, I feel compelled to describe it as a column. I think, the other reason is that a lot of the evidence that Fallows uses to support his argument or to guide the conversational flow is opinions. His sources, while all in high-ranking, impressively important roles, tended to state their opinions and not so much facts. The effect, I think, resulted in my feeling like I was being jerked around.
As for my actual opinion on whether America is going to hell? ... Well, I'm not qualified to say because I don't hold some sort of high level executive role in government or at university, so I'll just stay mum.
No comments:
Post a Comment